Midjourney's troubles get worse as Warner Bros Discovery sues the AI image generator for copyright infringement
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
“Midjourney has made a calculated and profit-driven decision to offer zero protection for copyright owners even though Midjourney knows about the breathtaking scope of its piracy and copyright infringement.”
That… sounds worrying. It’s not hard to imagine a success here eventually being extended to criminalize any and all fan art as “piracy.”
-
“Midjourney has made a calculated and profit-driven decision to offer zero protection for copyright owners even though Midjourney knows about the breathtaking scope of its piracy and copyright infringement.”
That… sounds worrying. It’s not hard to imagine a success here eventually being extended to criminalize any and all fan art as “piracy.”
Fan art is generally protected because of a rule called “fair use”, which allows people to use copyrighted work without permission. For example, if you briefly quote a book, the author won’t have success if they go after you for copying from their book, even though you clearly did. Generally speaking, a person making fan art and not selling it is going to be protected under fair use. The law wants creators to have control of the thing they created, but we all live in a shared culture and we all deserve to participate in the art we experience, so there’s some wiggle room, and this has been the case long before AI was a thing.
What these AI companies are doing, on the other hand… well, it hasn’t really been tested in court yet, but they’re doing a lot more than single images or brief quotes, and they’re doing it for money, so they’ll likely have some work to do.
-
Good. Please have this kind of ‘company’ die off and never try this bullshit again, you theiving, planet killing assholes.
-
Good. Please have this kind of ‘company’ die off and never try this bullshit again, you theiving, planet killing assholes.
You could be talking about either company here. I’m no fan of AI but you know this will set precedent for scummy companies like Warner Brothers to over reach into other things for “copyright reasons”.
-
You could be talking about either company here. I’m no fan of AI but you know this will set precedent for scummy companies like Warner Brothers to over reach into other things for “copyright reasons”.
Nope, I don’t know that.
-
Fan art is generally protected because of a rule called “fair use”, which allows people to use copyrighted work without permission. For example, if you briefly quote a book, the author won’t have success if they go after you for copying from their book, even though you clearly did. Generally speaking, a person making fan art and not selling it is going to be protected under fair use. The law wants creators to have control of the thing they created, but we all live in a shared culture and we all deserve to participate in the art we experience, so there’s some wiggle room, and this has been the case long before AI was a thing.
What these AI companies are doing, on the other hand… well, it hasn’t really been tested in court yet, but they’re doing a lot more than single images or brief quotes, and they’re doing it for money, so they’ll likely have some work to do.
So, no commissions or patreon support if you are drawing fan art, got it.
-
Fair use, in the US anyway, is based on four factors (source
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Not selling fan art helps to bolster factor #1, though that alone isn’t enough. Fair use itself would need to be determined by a judge, but ensuring the work is transformative enough and doesn’t disincentivize someone from purchasing the original work is probably enough commercial or not, but noncommercial theoretically should help.
(Not a lawyer, but I’ve followed this a bit)
Edit: note that fan art could be fair use but violate a trademark or other similar protected mark.
-
Fan art is generally protected because of a rule called “fair use”, which allows people to use copyrighted work without permission. For example, if you briefly quote a book, the author won’t have success if they go after you for copying from their book, even though you clearly did. Generally speaking, a person making fan art and not selling it is going to be protected under fair use. The law wants creators to have control of the thing they created, but we all live in a shared culture and we all deserve to participate in the art we experience, so there’s some wiggle room, and this has been the case long before AI was a thing.
What these AI companies are doing, on the other hand… well, it hasn’t really been tested in court yet, but they’re doing a lot more than single images or brief quotes, and they’re doing it for money, so they’ll likely have some work to do.
Generally speaking, a person making fan art and not selling it is going to be protected under fair use.
This is not generally true. The fan art also usually needs to be sufficiently transformative, and could still be violating, for example, if a character is widely licensed.
Fair use is really complicated. Usually it’s better to see if the copyright holder has any public policies on community creations, like WOTC’s fan content policy.
